The Urban Deer Problem in Magrath, Alberta

The Urban Deer Problem in Magrath, Alberta Sejer Meyhoff a January 23, 2017 a B.A., Dip., Research and Development Technician, Ag Spectra Ltd.

Abstract Magrath has a long standing and growing problem with urban white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Successful quota hunts have been used in the past to reduce the population surrounding Magrath, however, this did not alleviate the problem of deer within the town in the long term. White-tailed deer are exceptionally adaptable to urban environments and are able to boost their reproductive efficiency with artificial food sources that are available in urban settings. Problems with urban deer are widespread in North America and no universal solution is available. As such, additional measures are required on top of continuing the quota hunts on an annual basis. Provincial resource managers are willing and able to provide assistance in various ways such as arranging quota hunts, however, are not able to take ownership of the problem as it would set a precedent for many other towns in southern Alberta experiencing similar issues with urban deer. A series of recommendations are provided on how the town can take the initiatives on this issue. A long term and multi-faceted approach to managing Magrath s urban deer population is required in order to reduce the presence of deer within the town limits. No single approach will work on its own, and no efforts will yield a continued reduction the urban deer population if only carried out once. The components of the recommendations are: a census of all Magrath residents concerning public opinion on the presence of deer; continuation of the quota hunts on an annual basis; encouraging cooperation from landowners with regards to the quota hunts; bylaws prohibiting feeding the deer within town limits; and continuing education and communication with the public. The town should also consider obtaining a permit to hire a professional to shepherd the deer out of town at certain times of year (i.e. during fawning) as a method to achieve short term relief of the presence of deer in town and to prevent further habituation of deer in urban settings.

Table of Contents Introduction... 1 The Deer Problem in Magrath... 1 Quota Hunts... 3 How can White-tailed Deer Be Managed?... 4 Recommendations... 6 1. A Census of all Magrath Residents Concerning Public Opinion on the Presence of Deer... 6 2. Continuation of the Quota Hunts on an Annual Basis... 6 3. Encourage Cooperation from Landowners Surrounding Magrath... 7 4. Bylaws Prohibiting Feeding Deer Within Town Limits... 7 5. Education and Communication with the Public... 9 6. Obtaining a Permit to Shepherd the Deer... 10 Conclusion... 10 Literature Cited... 13 Table of Figures Figure 1 - Aerial Population Survey Data 1993-2002... 2 Figure 2 - Magrath quota hunt area, orange areas highlight high density areas of white-tailed deer... 8 Table 1 - Summarized Management Recommendations for Magrath s Urban Deer Problem... 12

1 Introduction For the past 20 years Magrath s urban white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) population has been steadily increasing in response to agricultural development, reduced habitat availability outside of town, and the increased allure of the safety of Magrath s urban setting. Trend surveys from 2004 of the section of Pothole Creek that runs through Magrath indicated that deer populations in that area had increased by 30% during the 10 years preceding 2004. Deer numbers within the town site itself had increased even more (up to 500%) as a result of a shift in habitat use by the deer favoring the safety and alternate food supply of the town (Morton and Lester, 2004). The deer continue to be a nuisance to many citizens as they occupy and destroy backyard flora and browse on garden plants in addition to posing a public health risk from vehicle collisions. Several quota hunts have been undertaken in the past proving successful in reducing the deer population in the Magrath area, however, the presence of deer within the town site has persisted. The town s council is searching for a solution to reduce the number of deer in town without drawing undue attention from the media or causing a public outcry (Magrath town council, pers. comm.). This report attempts to outline the extent of the urban deer issue in Magrath, addressing the limiting factors to past management practices, and recommendations for cooperative and adaptive management strategies to reduce the presence of deer in Magrath. The Deer Problem in Magrath The town of Magrath is surrounded, as many southern Alberta towns are, by agriculture that dominates the prairie landscape in the region. Over the past few decades, agricultural development has expanded further onto the landscape and the increasing presence of an easily accessible food source for deer has caused their population to increase as it has in many other places across North America (DeNicola et al., 2000). The removal of shelter belts and shrub cover from the landscape surrounding Magrath for agriculture has caused the deer to seek shelter elsewhere namely inside the town of Magrath. Another factor contributing to the

2 abundance of deer in Magrath is the grain elevator on the north end of town which at times provides deer with an easy food source from grain spillage (Alston, pers. comm.). In recent years the town has also implemented by-laws prohibiting dogs from being untethered in town and it is speculated that this factor has contributed to the deer no longer feeling as threatened inside town limits (Magrath town council, pers. comm.). Trend data from aerial population surveys of the Pothole creek area show the slight increase in deer population surrounding Magrath and the dramatic increase of deer present within the Magrath town site (labelled Magrath area below) between 1993 and 2002 (Figure 1). Figure 1 - Aerial Population Survey Data 1993-2002 (Morton and Lester, 2004) The town s council is adamant that the deer are a nuisance to the majority of citizens, although they recognize that there is a small vocal group in opposition to reducing the presence of deer in town. No official census has been conducted concerning the deer, however, several sources from the town s administration confirm that the deer are a significant nuisance and that they see no readily apparent solution to the problem (Magrath town council, pers. comm.). The greatest concern relates to public health and safety in particular in reference to vehicle collisions (Morton and Lester, 2004). These concerns, along with nuisance problems like deer

3 consuming garden and landscape plantings, are commonplace among many communities across North America experiencing an overabundance of deer (DeNicola et al., 2000). Vehicle collisions with deer also incur economic loss to citizens in addition to causing human injury, several cases of which have occurred in Magrath (Alston, pers. comm.). The problem faced by Magrath s town council is the desire to take decisive action without causing public outcry or receiving unwanted media attention. Small vocal groups, as well as the media, make it difficult for the council to proceed with any decisive action that may be misconstrued as inhumane. Quota hunts were implemented in 2004, 2010, 2011, and 2015 with a cooperative effort between the town of Magrath and the Fish and Wildlife Divisions from Lethbridge and Cardston counties (Morton, pers. comm.). Quota hunts were identified as a necessary component of the solution to deal with the problem in Magrath, however, it was also emphasized by the Fish and Wildlife Division that the long term responsibility lay with the town to protect their properties (Morton and Lester, 2004). That is to say that additional measures needed to be taken on part of the town and its residents to deter the deer from entering and occupying the town site. Quota Hunts The first quota hunt held in Magrath in 2004 had a very high participation rate and within four weekend seasons the 95 hunters were able to harvest 164 antlerless white-tailed deer. Evidence to support the quota hunt was gathered by wildlife managers prior to the hunt, which included the trend survey of the Pothole Creek area that suggested deer numbers had been increasing in the Magrath area in the past 10 years, and in particular within the town site itself. A limited survey suggested a high degree of approval from residents of Magrath at the time and a landowner survey also suggested a high degree of support for the first quota hunt. With support from the town and empirical biological data to support the quota hunt it went forward in 2004, and again in 2010, 2011, and 2015. Success was heavily reliant on approval and cooperation from landowners surrounding Magrath as hunters were required to obtain written permission from at least one landowner within the designated quota hunt area to be eligible for a tag (Morton and Lester, 2004). The quota hunts were successful in facilitating the harvest of

4 antlerless white-tailed deer in the Magrath area and reducing the population during the years they were done (Morton, pers. comm.). How can White-tailed Deer Be Managed? White-tailed deer are highly adaptable in their habitat use and foraging habits which is why they are so successful at adapting to urban environments. The deer use thickets of vegetation for cover and for food sources, and supplement their diet with abundant high quality forage from agricultural and urban settings. White-tailed deer also have high reproductive potential, especially when well-fed and can increase their population sizes dramatically in short periods of time without proper management. Hunter harvest is the primary cause of mortality for whitetailed deer, consequently the areas that experience overabundant deer populations are those that offer good cover, artificially high quality and quantity food sources, and where hunting is not permitted (DeNicola et al., 2000). White-tailed deer organize themselves in a matrilineal fashion, that is to say that the females reside in groups led by a single female. Females tend to have relatively small established home ranges that they stick to. Young female deer will often develop home ranges that overlap with their mothers close to where they were born, while male deer tend to disperse from their mother s home range. Once a population has been reduced, however, adjacent matrilineal groups will not readily move in to occupy the vacancy. It is possible to manage small areas and reduce the population of deer locally, however, efforts must be ongoing to counteract the high reproductive efficiency of the deer (DeNicola et al., 2000). Many other communities across North America struggle with managing overabundant urban deer populations similar to Magrath. Each management report offers a different approach based on the particular circumstances such as available resources, public opinion, and geographic location. In many cases an additional bow hunting season was the main strategy used to reduce deer populations (Weckel and Rockwell, 2013; Hygnstrom et al., 2011), and in other cases trapping and culling were utilized (Zettel and Teske, 2013).

5 Translocation is an approach that can be used when public opinion is a concern as this method would likely be considered the most humane. The practice of translocating urbanized deer is not commonplace, however, trial studies have been done. The city of Cranbrook, British Columbia, has recently joined a cooperative translocation trial effort with the communities of Kimberly, Invermere, and Elkford. The first translocation effort took place in early 2016 with widespread support (Cranbrook Townsman, 2015), and is reportedly going well so far (Kimberly Bulletin, 2016). This approach can be extremely expensive, however, if the town s budget does not allow for the cost of a translocation effort it may be an option to develop a partnership with Lethbridge College wherein this service could be carried out in an educational capacity. While trapping and culling or translocating may offer a fast approach to directly reducing deer within the town site, these methods are expensive. In translocating deer, the issue also arises of where to move them, often resulting in either having to move them great distances at a large expense, or simply relocating the problem to a different area. Natural resource managers must also be aware of setting precedents using expensive management techniques in dealing with issues that are widespread. There are many other small towns in southern Alberta attempting to deal with the same issues as Magrath (Morton, pers. comm.). A common theme among the successful management approaches is that consultation, cooperation, and adaptive management practices are employed throughout. There is no single universal solution available to manage urban deer despite the abundance of research, so small communities are forced to come up with innovative and cost-effective management practices that fit their particular circumstances. In Magrath s case hunter harvest has been decided and proven to be an effective means of reducing the deer population in the surrounding area (Morton and Lester, 2004), however, additional measures are required in order to reduce the deer presence within the town site in the long-term.

6 Recommendations It is recommended that a cooperative and multi-faceted approach be taken to the management of Magrath s urban deer population. The recommendations include: 1) a census of all Magrath residents concerning public opinion on the presence of deer, 2) continuation of the quota hunts on an annual basis, 3) encourage cooperation from landowners surrounding Magrath with regards to the quota hunt, 4) bylaws prohibiting feeding the deer within town limits, 5) continuing education and communication with the public, and 6) consider obtaining a permit to hire a professional to shepherd the deer out of town at certain times of year (i.e. during fawning). 1. A Census of all Magrath Residents Concerning Public Opinion on the Presence of Deer One of the main concerns voiced by Magrath s town council in deciding how to deal with the urban deer problem was that of public outcry and unwanted media attention in response to management action that could be misconstrued as inhumane or unnecessary. It would be of benefit to the towns administration in this regard to conduct a census of public opinion concerning the deer. If the majority of the citizens of Magrath wish action to be taken to reduce the presence of deer in town then the towns administration can justify their decisions on the basis of this census. 2. Continuation of the Quota Hunts on an Annual Basis Quota hunting was identified as an appropriate component of the management initiative in 2004 and remains an effective and relatively inexpensive method for reducing deer numbers in the Magrath area. Literature on the subject confirms that the most efficient and cost effective way to reduce a deer population is to allow hunters to harvest female deer (Mayumi et al., 2010). For the remedy to be long-term, however, the quota hunts should be performed on an annual basis so as not to allow the deer population to rebound during years when they are not

7 carried out. Fish and wildlife resource managers have expressed their willingness to arrange for the quota hunts to take place provided that the town takes the initiative in contacting landowners and procures the appropriate levels of approval from the residents of Magrath (Morton, pers. comm.). 3. Encourage Cooperation from Landowners Surrounding Magrath A crucial component to the success of the quota hunts is to gain cooperation with landowners surrounding Magrath to allow hunters on to the land most preferred by the deer. Certain areas around Magrath have been identified as being preferred by the deer and are subject to much higher densities than other areas around Magrath. Within TWP-005 RGE-22, the NE and SE quarter sections of section 36 east of Magrath, and the NW and SW quarter sections of section 15 south of the golf course have been identified as high density areas for white-tailed deer. These areas are highlighted in orange in Figure 2 (Morton, pers. comm). Without the consent of the majority of landowners around Magrath, and in particular those owning the quarter sections previously mentioned, hunters will not be able to gain effective access for a successful hunt. As was done in previous quota hunts hunters should be required to obtain written permission from at least one landowner in order to be eligible for a tag. Prior to that, however, the towns administration should reach out to landowners and encourage them to be receptive to allowing hunters during the quota hunt for the benefit of the town and in the interest of solving the urban deer issue. 4. Bylaws Prohibiting Feeding Deer Within Town Limits Citizens who feed deer in an urban setting contribute to problems associated with habituated urban deer in several ways. Supplemental feeding can increase the reproductive capacity of a deer population, contribute to deer becoming more accustomed to humans, and encourage the deer to congregate in urban areas. It is especially beneficial to deer populations when feeding

8 Figure 2 - Magrath quota hunt area, orange areas highlight high density areas of white-tailed deer (Morton, pers. comm.); Morton and Lester, 2004)

9 occurs in winter, when food supplies might otherwise be low (DeNicola et al., 2000). It is important that efforts be taken to prevent citizens of Magrath from contributing to the problem in this way. One way is to implement a by-law banning the feeding of deer, although this alone may not prevent all individuals from feeding the deer unless complemented with an educational approach to inform the public why feeding the deer contributes to the problem significantly. Once those individuals understand that they are contributing to a problem that concerns public health and safety they may be more inclined to stop feeding the deer. Management efforts will be largely in vain if some citizens continue to feed the deer (DeNicola et al., 2000). 5. Education and Communication with the Public It should be made clear to the public that in order to effectively deal with this issue the town will have to work together on several fronts. The quota hunt is only one facet of what can be done to reduce the presence of deer in town. Besides not feeding the deer, citizens should be encouraged to employ deterrents or fencing to keep deer off their property. In the past information has been provided on urban wildlife management and ways in which individuals can help towards mitigating urban wildlife problems (Morton and Lester, 2004). It would likely be of benefit to the deer management effort if the towns administration again reached out to provincial resource managers for this type of information and helped to make it publically available. While the quota hunt provides a significant contribution to the management of urban deer by reducing their population surrounding town, the onus is on the town and its residents to ensure that all reasonable additional measures are being taken to discourage the deer from residing within the town and to see the problem solved.

10 6. Obtaining a Permit to Shepherd the Deer Lastly, it is recommended that the towns administration consider obtaining a permit to hire a professional to shepherd the deer out of town at certain times of year, i.e. during fawning season. This would help to directly reduce deer numbers within town and discourage females from giving birth within town limits which would otherwise lead to pre-habituated deer (Parks Canada, 2015). Hazing or frightening the habituated deer in this way is a non-lethal management strategy used to move deer at certain times of the year. Deer are quickly habituated to devices that produce light and sound designed to frighten them (VerCauteren et al., 2005), as such the method is used only at strategic times during the year as is done in Waterton Lakes National Park. In the Waterton town site a dog handler is hired to use shepherding dogs to move the deer out of town during fawning seasons. This is done for two reasons: because female deer can be aggressive during this time in order to protect their young; and so that new fawns are not born inside the town and attribute the town with their home range (Parks Canada, 2015). This may be an option for Magrath to consider as it would help to deal directly with the deer present within the town site. Conclusion Modern agricultural practices are at odds with a hands-off approach to long-term wildlife management. Habitats are fragmented, removed, and otherwise altered and white-tailed deer are able to adapt and thrive but not without imposing on urban environments and becoming a nuisance to many human populations. A fundamental shift in the mindset of agricultural practice is required to solve this sort of problem on a large scale. This shift includes making and preserving space on the landscape for wildlife by for example increasing the number of shelter belts and suitable habitats where the deer will feel safe. The solution is of course not as simple as that and other factors such as production, economy, and landowner rights are to be considered, however, these issues will need to be addressed sooner or later as human encroachment on the landscape and the demand for food production increases. This is a topic

11 for another much larger research paper and to solve this problem is not a realistic goal for a single community. It is, however, well within the reach of the Magrath community to work together on a management plan to mitigate the urban deer problem to a tolerable level. For a management plan to succeed long-term goals and objectives must be agreed upon by the towns council, the community, land owners surrounding the town, and provincial fish and wildlife management personnel. The plan should be long-term and multi-faceted, but most importantly it should be recognized that the town and its residents bear the ultimate responsibility for the success of any plan and the mitigation of the problem. Natural resource managers at the provincial level are willing and able to assist in various ways including overseeing quota hunts, however, are limited in their capacity to take ownership of the problem. Were they to do so they would set a precedent for all small towns in southern Alberta and soon be overwhelmed with demands for the same treatment. As such, Magrath should take the initiative and seek the province s assistance in arranging quota hunts every year in addition to ensuring that the citizens of Magrath work together to mitigate the problem.

12 Summarized Management Recommendations for Magrath s Urban Deer Problem 1. Town census 2. Continuation of annual quota hunts 3.Encourage landowner cooperation 4. Prohibit feeding the deer Conduct a census of the residents of Magrath concerning the deer presence to justify management actions. Town to take initiative and ensure a quota hunt in conducted annually with help from provincial Fish and Wildlife services. Gain cooperation from key landowners surrounding Magrath to ensure that the quota hunts include the areas with high densities of deer. Stop all feeding of deer within town limits, management efforts will largely be in vain if some residents continue to feed the deer. 5. Education and communication with public 6. Obtain permit to hire someone to shepherd the deer Table 1 - Summarized Management Recommendations for Magrath s Urban Deer Problem Continue to keep public informed of decisions and progress, as well as making information available on how individuals can help mitigate the nuisance problems. As is done in the Waterton town site, Magrath may want to consider obtaining a permit to hire a professional to shepherd the deer out of town during certain times of year, i.e. during fawning.

13 Literature Cited Alston, Wade. 2016. Personal communication, November 16. Chief Administrative Officer for the Town of Magrath. Cranbrook Townsman. 2015. Urban deer translocation project to begin [Internet]. [Cited 22 Nov 2016]. Available from: http://www.cranbrooktownsman.com/breaking_news/363294581.html DeNicola, A.J., K.C. VerCauteren, P.D. Curtis, and S.E. Hygnstrom. 2000. Managing White-tailed Deer in Suburban Environments: A Technical Guide [Internet]. [Cited 22 Nov 2016]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266911156_managing_whitetailed_deer_in_suburban_environments_a_technical_guide?enrichid=rgreqfb65be2c30206ae42e73744a734a7ec2- XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2NjkxMTE1NjtBUzoyMDcwMjM1MDY0OTc1MzZA MTQyNjM2OTY1ODI4MQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_3 Hygnstrom, S.E., G.W. Garabrandt, and K.C. Vercauteren. 2011. Fifteen Years of Urban Deer Management: The Fontenelle Forest Experience. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 35(3):126-136. Magrath Town Council. 2016. Personal communication, November 1. Council included Mayor Russ Barnett, Councillor Brenda Beck, Councillor Brain Oliver, Councillor Gerry Baril, Councillor Craig Godlonton, Councillor Richard VanEe, and Councillor Devar Dahl. Mayumi, U., K. Kaji, and T. Saitoh. 2010. Culling Versus Density Effects in Management of a Deer Population. Journal of Wildlife Management. 74(7):1472-1483. Morton, K. 2017. Personal communication, January 12. Resource Manager, Resource Management Program, Alberta Environment and Parks. Morton, K., L. Lester. 2004. Magrath Quota Hunt January 8-31, 2004 Post-hunt Summary. Fish and Wildlife Division Lethbridge and Cardston, Alberta. Parks Canada. 2015. Waterton Lakes National Parks Aggressive deer [Internet]. [Cite 22 Nov 2016]. Available from: http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-np/ab/waterton/visit/visit4/visit4a.aspx The Bulletin. 2016. So far, so good for East Kootenay deer translocation study [Internet]. [Cited 22 Nov 2016]. Available from: http://www.kimberleybulletin.com/breaking_news/376732931.html VerCauteren, K.C., J.A. Shivik, and M.J. Lavelle. 2005. Efficacy of an animal-activated frightening device on urban elk and mule deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 33(4):1282-1287.

14 Weckel, M., and R.F. Rockwell. 2013. Can controlled bow hunts reduce overabundant whitetailed deer populations in suburban ecosystems? Ecological Modelling. 250:143-154. Zettel, C., and I. Teske. 2015. Urban Deer Management Annual Report 2015. The City of Cranbrook. Cranbrook, British Columbia.